Molenir comments

I'm curious where they got these obviously bogus figures.

you bought a DVD but you didn't buy the movie itself. You bought a license to watch it. Not to copy it.

2 words... Fair Use

I'm not going to bother to address the idea that these groups should be tax exempt.

A group of between 100 to 200 employees have to process tens of thousands of tax-exempt organization requests per year, and the rules underlying these applications are the most simple and clear-cut. Combined with high turnover, the team got over-whelmed.

lol, you are doing a great job of just creating facts, and ignoring reality. What you are saying, is that the IRS is ignoring the truth. The only reason they had any problems, was not because of some folks in Ohio, not because of department directives that created a bolo list, but only that a couple of poor schlubs were overworked. You would have to be one of the most uninformed, idiotic person to accept this. If this is the best that you can come up with, I'm going to have to call this off. I don't feel right, picking on the helpless.

Bush 2 never went after media records, despite many damaging leaks that occurred under his watch. In fact, now that I think about it, I can't recall a single similar instance where the DOJ has sought media records, particularly not on such a scope and scale as this. Perhaps you can't point me to a link that shos the precedents?

I did a bit more research. DOJ has gone after reporters records in the past, just not on this scope, or scale. That has never happened before. Additionally, I take back what I said about it not happening under Bush 2. FBI went after Washington Post and NYT records, though it was in their Indonesia Bureau, not in the US.

Says the qualified climate scientist. Oh wait...

Heh, take the time to read some of the CRU emails. Maybe you'll start asking a couple questions, rather then going along with the rest of the sheeple.

Oh, so there is a "first amendment right" for the press to print highly sensitive information received from a government source unauthorized to disclose it? There are definitely precedents for the government to seize phone records to track down unauthorized leaks from government. The right-wingers aren't fooling anyone.

Perhaps you should take the time to read the first amendment. The answer is, yes. In fact it is generally accepted, that the Press can print anything that is not an outright lie, at any time they choose. Though doing so frequently would be irresponsible, and reprehensible. NYT is a frequent offender in this, though not as much now that their boy is in office. Bush 2 never went after media records, despite many damaging leaks that occurred under his watch. In fact, now that I think about it, I can't recall a single similar instance where the DOJ has sought media records, particularly not on such a scope and scale as this. Perhaps you can't point me to a link that shos the precedents?

LOL! Would a left-wing group calling itself The Anti-Tea-Party Education Fund have been scrutinized by the IRS? If the presumable answer is "Yes," the case is closed.

I wonder if you would feel the same if the IRS added the word "Progressive" to their BOLO list? The hypocrisy of some people truly astounds me, and the desperation they demonstrate in their pathetic attempts to excuse the President and his administration. These people would probably try to justify Obama putting a gun to someones head, and pulling the trigger! Actually, nevermind, given the drone strikes, and the lefts deafening silence, thats already happened.

The gullibility of some people, is truly amazing. Probably should change their nick to Chicken Little.

Why do people trust medically-trained scientists with their health, qualified pilots with their lives and financially-educated bankers with their wealth, but suddenly decide they don't trust professional climate scientists?

Perhaps its a knowledge of what these 'professional' scientists have done in the past. Perhaps its their efforts to "hide the decline" Or maybe its simply the knowledge, that if they don't go along with the herd, they don't get their share of the funding. Climate "Science" has long since ceased to have anything to do with science, and more to do with religion. Failure to go along with it, is nothing less then blasphemy.

One can imagine the uproar from right-wingers if Obama moved to attempt to rescind the person's Fifth Amendment rights. Heads, right-wingnuts win; tails, Obama loses.

lol, you mean the way the DOJ has moved to rescind the 1st amendment rights of the Press?

"Excessive" by what standard? Would conservatives complain if ACORN and NAACP were scrutinized in the same manner? Wait a minute, I believe they were!

Hmm, you mean the IRS audited them, and acted in ways to cost them millions of dollars and a great deal of influence, coinciding with an election? Yeah, mind pointing to that story yabits? There is a significant difference between congressional oversight of public fund expenditure, and and being placed on an IRS blacklist. Trying to equate these, you really are flailing desperately.

Either we act now or our grandchildren are going to die horribly. The deniers are clutching at straws, citing slight discrepancies in the figures as if they were significant. The overall temperature trend is relentlessly upwards, and burying your head in the sand and thinking everything's going to be all right is the behaviour of a deluded idiot.

It really would help if you could be bothered to actually read the article you are commenting about.

It is really pathetic though that there are still so many deluded fools, who believe the so called climate 'scientists' who continue to massage the data, to get the results they want. When one model fails to live up to reality, they simply make a new one, again ensuring that the global warming gravy train continues. After all, if they stop trying to terrify everyone into believing the sky is falling, and started trying to do real science, they wouldn't get the funding, and then where would we be?

Personally, I still have a hard time believing anyone buys the CO2 nonsense. Its plant food for gods sake! A third grader knows more about the environment then some of these 'scientists'.

So, since the models that the Global Warming Hysterics were using to terrify people into continuing to fund them, are not working, at all, now we get new models, pushing back the warming further. So, warming isn't happening now, it instead is going to happen in the future...

Guess that hockey stick really was made up. So much for the 'science' of global warming.

I have to say, I really look forward to the day, when science is once again about reality and truth, and less about politics and money.

I'm curious also, how many left wing groups applied for, and received tax exempt status, without difficulty.

LOL! You have to ask?

Given your insistance that he is Darth Vader, yes, I'd like to know, what specifically he did that was illegal. Enlighten me.

Yes, secret from the American people. And here I thought he was supposed to be working for us. Meeting with energy executives? What is he hiding?

Again, this is different from Obama how? Obama who secretly sneaks people in, and listens to Green Energy people, who then get unbelievable deals with taxpayer money. Is there even a comparison here between asking advice from energy execs about energy policy, and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on obviously failed schemes?

Readers can be assured that you don't have a single clue about the IRS "problems."

Apparently, I have more of a clue then you. Do a little research. White House counsel was advised about the investigation, long before the election. I guess this usual response for libs. If the facts don't back them up, attack whoever dares question them, and their holy messiah. Right out of Alinsky's playbook.

Glad this woman did what she did. But, I'm curious, why is this international news?

The Democrats who didn't support it were correct according to the Republicans who are reversing course today. I can't recall any Republicans who opposed it -- not to say there wasn't a smattering, much to Herr Karl's dismay.

You fail to answer my main question though. Why do you want to continue to give any President, even this one who you believe can do no wrong, so much power? You know eventually a Republican will be President again, it might even be Bush 3, god forbid. Why aren't you one of those supporting the repeal?

Fact: In 2001, it was a Republican-controlled Congress that gave a Republican president "broad authority," which included invading a nation illegally -- a nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Well, partial fact anyway. Definitely a Republican congress, but done with Bi-Partisan support. A whole lot of Democrats supported it. Also, I'm curious, when say they illegally invaded a foreign country, which one are you referring to?

By the way, yabits, I'm actually a little surprised at you. You were one of those who hated the Patriot Act. Wheres the outrage? If Bush is in power, then you hate it, but as long as the President happens to have a D next to his name, then what, you support total dictatorial powers? WTH?

Personally, I support the removal of this law, as well as most of the Patriot Act. I don't think any President, be they Republican or Democrat should be given so much unlimited power.

Did Boehner know? If he did, he should resign immediately. His party is directly responsible for trying to mislead the American public about what happened after the attack. Hopefully there will be hearings to discovered who knew what in the Republican party.

Heh, have to add one thing. Since you are so severe, insisting that those involved in the cover-up should resign immediately... You are of course calling for Obama to resign as well, since he was directly involved in lying to the American people, in covering up Benghazi. Anyone else looking forward to President Biden? Come on SuperLib, stand up for your principles, call for Obama to resign immediately! Or are you going to admit that libs are nothing but lying hypocrites?

Obviously the leak was orchestrated by a Republicans source. The question is...who? Did Boehner know? If he did, he should resign immediately. His party is directly responsible for trying to mislead the American public about what happened after the attack. Hopefully there will be hearings to discovered who knew what in the Republican party.

Obviously, this is all the fault of the Republicans. lol, So funny! This is truly pathetic! Trying to turn this onto Republicans. The loons are getting more and more desparate trying to defend their boy. Its never the fault of a Dem, somehow, it is always a Republican thats to blame. Guess Obama fits right in. Nothing is ever his fault either.

Let's not forget the one who has most resembled Nixon in sheer criminality over the past decade: former Vice-President Dick Cheney. He's the current holder of the "I'll-Tell-You-I'm-Not-A-Crook-But-I-Really-Am" Award, and it's not likely anyone will challenge him for it anytime soon.

Sorry, but what did Cheney do that was illegal? Just because you don't like the man, does not make him like nixon. And trying to keep VP records secret under executive privilege is different from Obama how exactly? Can you say Fast and Furious? Btw, I'm still waiting for someone to be arrested and extradited to Mexico to face charges. How many deaths are they responsible for exactly?

Getting back to the current issue though. Obama, is beginning to look a lot more like Nixon. Just read the news that the administration knew about the IRS problems, before the election, and covered it up until after the election. So, Benghazi, covered up, and spun til after the election, IRS targeting political opponents, covered up til after the election. He is looking more incompetent and criminal by the day. Lies and corruption are running rampant. But thats about what you would expect from a Chicago Democrat.

I have to take back what I said about this being a good first step... The guy who was asked to resign? His term ends in June. So he's leaving, when he would leave. Not fired.

A good first step on what is a long road. A lot more people need to be fired, and some people need to go to jail. Abuse of power should never be tolerated.

But environmentalists said Burke had approved the single biggest land clearing project in Cape York’s history, claiming it would wipe out 30,000 hectares (74,000 acres) of a landscape identified as being of World Heritage standard.

Wipe out 30k hectares? Really? Might as well be going around screaming "Our World is Crumbling around us!"

While the ranting is amusing, I gotta say though, its also little worrisome. Seeing someone foam at the mouth, I have to ask, have these eco-nuts been tested for rabies?

It's quite natural that those inclined to criminality want to hide their immoral behavior behind a smokescreen of "complications."

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement? Come on yabits, which side are you on? You've been going all out, defending this President, making excuses for him, and then you come out with this? lol. Thank you, that made my day.

There was also the unprovoked (and allegedly accidental) attack by an Iraqi jet on the USS Stark, in which 37 sailors were killed. (For the young 'uns out there, Saddam was once considered useful to the US until his unwise invasion of Kuwait presented a problem that could not be swept under the carpet.)

Have to take issue with you on this. The US thought he was useful, in punishing Iran, until he started losing the war, and started using Chemical weapons. The US pulling their support had nothing to do with Kuwait, and everything to do with WMDs. I'm kind of surprised that someone who remembers the Stark, doesn't remember this.

LFRAgain

No, actually. The White House position on the attacks changed on Sept. 20 when Press Secretary Jay Carney called the event "a terrorist attack." That's eight days after the attack. Not "weeks", as you suggest.

Sorry, I can't let this go. 8 days after the attack, Jay Carney under increasing pressure, finally admitted, that it was "self-evident" that it was a terrorist attack. However that very same day, Obama apparently didn't get the memo, because when asked straight out if it was a terrorist attack, he ducked the question. 5 days after that, appearing on the view, he again ducked the question. At no time during the first month, did Obama himself actually state, that Benghazi was a terrorist act, despite being asked about it multiple times. He did however talk about a video...

This kind of needless exaggeration does little to help anything and lends itself more to the growing suspicion that the GOP is desperately seeking something -- anything -- to discredit Obama, and by extension, the Democratic Party, when the GOP's own glaring lack of cohesive, resonating domestic policies is the true source of its decline.

This kind of attempts to alter history, do not lend credence to your argument, in fact it rather undercuts it. Go back and watch the view for September 25th, is not hard to see, that weeks later, the administration was still in denial mode, and still blaming a stupid video, that no one had even heard of until Susan Rice brought it up.

viking68

Obama is a saint compared to past presidents. The biggest complaint is he wants to implement socially conscious policies instead of imposing the religious mores on America, like many conservatives want to do all the while claiming American freedom and independence. Sure, he steps too far left sometimes, but he is the best president since Clinton. Before saying some meaningless nonsense about Monica Lewinski, Clinton actually balanced the budget following the run up in debt by . . . . Republicans.

Wow, Obama a saint? Theres a lot of things I could say about that, things like, idiotic, stupid etc, but its not even worth addressing. Obama will go down in History as one of the worst Presidents in US history. There are not many that have demonstrated more incompetence, more poor judgement, more of a lack of leadership. You could easily put him on par with Andrew Johnson, and not be far off. No, he isn't Nixon, who brazenly broke the law, but he is no leader, and these scandals merely demonstrate his incompetence and stupidity.

I agree about Clinton. He was a joke, but overall, not a bad president. Though please keep in mind, that saying he balanced the budget after the debt was run up by Republicans is nonsense. In fact it was the Republican victory in 94 that forced him into balancing the budget. However, unlike Obama, he worked with Republicans to balance the budget, and in that sense, by reaching across party lines, and working with his political opponents, he was actually a good President. However he had to abandon several core liberal principles to do it. Its also not true that it was Republicans who ran up the debt. Oh, its true to an extent. Republicans certainly share the blame. But it was only once Dems returned to power in 2006, that the deficit truly exploded.

Truly, Obama is no Nixon, Nixon was a leader, not a political figurehead. Unfortunately, Nixon was also a liar and a "crook". Obama is a more honest man, but he couldn't lead a child to the toilet. How low we have fallen to have either Nixons or Obamas as presidents.

I actually agree that Obama is no Nixon. That said, he is a liar. He ran around the country for weeks after Benghazi, insisting it was all because of some pathetic video. Of course its not against the law to lie to your constituents. If it was, no politician would have a job

Wouldn't it be nice though if there was some independent organization whose job it was to bring to light, and call attention to the lies? That job used to belong to the media, but they're such lapdogs now. Heh, although after violating the AP, maybe that will change, for a few days at least.

Guys, lets consider this rationally for a few minutes...

IRS scandal. Is Obama to blame? Realistically, no. The department was being run by a former Bush appointee. Those who violated the law, doubtless acted on Obamas behalf, and without the IRS heads knowledge. Obama can't be blamed for this.

Benghazi - Does Obama deserve the blame for the 4 deaths? Probably not. Again he is not responsible for managing the security at all these far flung consulates. The State Department is, and this probably is going to hit Clinton, as it was something she should have been aware of. He could have authorized action, but if his people were telling him, there was nothing they could do...

AP Phone tapping. - Obama to blame? Heh, idiotic assertion. Of course not. Someone in the justice department totally, and completely screwed up. Does it rise to the White House? Probably, as its hard to imagine someone in the white house not being aware of this, but Obama personally? Not a chance.

So what does all this mean? Is Obama to blame for any of this? No, not personally. And thats the difference between him and Nixon. What it does, is suggest that Obama is incompetent. That he has picked people, so bad as to make him appear as if he can do nothing right.

I left one thing out... The continued Benghazi cover-up. Obama is going to have to take the blame for this. He was involved in it. He went around the country, deliberately making false statements, alleging that Benghazi happened, not because his policies were idiotic, but because of some dumb video. He had to know, that this was not the case. Additionally, his administrations continued threats against whistleblowers, has prevented survivors of Benghazi from coming forward. While I have a hard time believing he personally is involved in threatening whistleblowers, his administration is. Specifically, when it comes down to it, people in the white house, are engaged in it. And of course, even just a few days ago, Jay Carney blatantly, and demonstrably lied, presenting the Presidents spin.

Having said this though, lying to the American people, is not an impeachable offense. Nothing I see, is an impeachable offense. Vile and contemptible yes. Demonstrating poor judgement and incompetence, again yes, but we've had incompetents and idiots in the Presidency before. Obama isn't the first, and he won't be the last.

The latest scandal in an already scandal plagued administration. From the Benghazi cover-up, to the IRS breaking the law, to the administrations blatant power grabs, as they try to circumvent the democratic process, and of course their desperate attempt to stifle both freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, things are looking bad all around for Obama... And yet his solution to government stupidity, incompetence, and lawlessness is to grow the government further. Giving the government more power, and more control over the lives of all its citizens. Its truly mind-boggling.

Tried as an enemy combatant!?! God help us, if the Republicans have their way the US really will slide into dictatorship.

Out of curiosity, what do Republicans have to do with this? Lets be clear here. The storm troopers, evicting people from their homes, were acting under the aegis of Homeland Security, and Obama. The question of Miranda rights, also happened under our current President. To put it another way, there are idiots on both sides. If people stop and consider the actual situation, Guantanamo wouldn't even be considered. This is an American citizen, who committed crimes in America. His reasons for doing so don't matter, except as aggravating or extenuating circumstances. He should be tried, the same way the mafia guys who set off car bombs were, and if found guilty, should face the death penalty.

Religion, terrorism, acts of war against the country, cannot really be applied to an American citizen acting on US soil.

Islam's got problems... This is going to create a major backlash.

Not possible, its Islam after all. Now if it was Christianity, you'd see churches burning around the world.

I'm still waiting to hear what Obama considers a wasteful government program.

That would be the US Military. Nothing more wasteful then defending the country.